December 19, 2017

Related Events

Indiana Court of AppealsJ.R. and C.R. v. S.P. and D.P
31A04-1706-DC-1284
Domestic relations with children. Affirms the grant of S.P. and D.P.’s motion to dismiss a custody action in which C.R. and J.R. sought to obtain custody of A.P. 13 years after C.R. voluntarily relinquished right to A.P. and consented to A.P.’s adoption. Finds the Harrison Circuit Court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss.

Jaylen Bolden v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A02-1707-CR-1601
Criminal. Affirms Jaylen Bolden’s sentence to 40 years, with 30 years executed and 10 years suspended to supervised probation, for his conviction of Level 1 felony rape. Finds Bolden failed to meet his burden of proving his sentence is inappropriate.

Jimmy D. Tanksley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A05-1703-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Jimmy Duane Tanksley’s direct placement in a community transition program and the imposition of the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction. Finds Tanksley was given a hearing that comported with due process. Also finds the Madison Circuit Court did not exceed its authority or abuse its discretion in revoking his direct placement in the CTP. Finally, finds Tanksley cannot establish a double jeopardy violation.

William Epperly v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A05-1704-CR-812
Criminal. Affirms William Epperly’s sentence to an aggregate of one year for his conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and Class A misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident with bodily injury. Finds the Howard Superior Court did not abuse its discretion because it was not required to articulate and balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances when imposing a sentence on a misdemeanor conviction. Also finds Epperly’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences is without merit because the court imposed concurrent sentences. Finally, finds Epperly waived his argument that his sentence is inappropriate, and waiver notwithstanding, his sentence is not inappropriate.

David W. Erickson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1701-PC-140
Post-conviction. Affirms the denial of David W. Erickson’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds the post-conviction court did not err in denying Erickson’s request for post-conviction relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.